The Sinosphere left looks at rising China: Missed dialogues and the search for an ‘Asian perspective’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary left-wing debate in the Sinosphere, here limited to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Hong Kong, and Taiwan, is often fuelled by the political, economic, and social implications of the PRC’s rise as a world power. While agreeing upon basic premises of anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism, left-wing intellectuals in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan come to loggerheads over critiquing how China’s rise influences its leftist identity. In the past few years we have witnessed a series of fractured and one-sided arguments among Sinosphere left-wing intellectuals. As part of the research dialogues on mapping the intellectual public sphere in China today, this article examines the cacophony of the Sinosphere leftist echo chamber, starting from contentious debates over the leftist nature of Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement and Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement, and then focusing on voices that are attempting to bring together left-wing traditions from the PRC, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Scholars such as He Zhaotian, Chen Kuan-Hsing, and Sun Ge are exploring possibilities of de-imperialization, decolonization, and de-Cold War-ization, in the hopes of creating a shared, emancipatory ‘Asian perspective’. Though few in number, these voices demonstrate a growing utopian urge within the Sinosphere left to participate in mutual dialogues on possible futures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".